Brahmos? Not enough space under the belly, and too heavy under the wings. same for NG model I think.
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
yes...I also think Brahmos won't be there. Most importantly I don't think it is needed for this type. Air to AIr capabilities are most important so the weapons and avionics will be most optimized for that since the primarily role of the jet will be point defence.
Why only point defence? Then what is the use of such medium class payload capacity and range?
Medium arrange allows things like a more important loitering time , more range etc. Frompure interception one can go to air dominance, be more reactive for CAS, perform ISR, air interdiction etc. Generally speaking going to and further than FEBA.
don't forget a second role in air to ground mission, with laser guided bombs, missiles or rockets. In case of a near the indian border war, it will be helpfull. For deeper strike, use Rafale and MKI with Brahmos.
it will be able to of course, but primary optimization will be A2A interception.
@Bon Plan look at deployment it supports the hypothesis. The first depllyments are in the south- generally cut off on both sides with 1000s of KMs distance with Pakistan and China. Historically these areas have seen very little action in conflicts too. The enemy jets that come all the way down here will be heavily under fuel pressure and will have limited ability to fly in supersonic regimes to conserve fuel. In these kinds of scenarios a pilot with a light and nimble fighter like LCA, not to mention refreshed mindset and no limitations to fight in supersonic regimes (near availabiity of mid air refueling systems and very high flight availability due to hot refuelling) can wreak havoc on them. Since their mid air refuellers will be several hundred KM away from here, dependence on internal fuel reserves for Pak pilots will be high- and very little for Indian pilots who can fly in both sub-sonic and supersonic regimes at will. result- Turkey Shoot.
we will need at least 100+ jets in the south and central parts of India- all can be beautifully filled by LCA.
we will need at least 100+ jets in the south and central parts of India- all can be beautifully filled by LCA.
What is deeper strike? How deep can rafale go without being shot down? It is easy to say big words. What matters is fuel to weight ration, not just fuel without weight. The fuel to weight ratio of Tejas Mk2 will be as good as rafale. So, there is no need to use rafales at all. Only Su30 will be better in long time loitering.
The idea that rafale will be carrying 2 fuel tank and loitering around makes me laugh. Air superiority requires high maneuverability and agility which entails clean flight with only BVRAAM missiles. That can be done only by Su30. Rafale fails big time here.
This is another bogus theory. Tejas Mk2 or MCA is similar to F16. With MToW of 17.5tons, Tejas has similar payloads of F16. Tejas MK1 has wing area of 38m^2 while F16 has wing area of 27m^2. This wing area difference makes MCA able to carry more weight than F16 per unit engine thrust. So, Tejas Mk2 or MCA is not an interceptor but comparable to F16
I never said it was not comparable to other jets- I said it's primary role is point defence. Which happens to be the most important defensive role BTW.
One cannot say that without lift and drag coefficients. A bit confused with haigh manoeuvrability, agility and BVRAAM theory. Yes, they are to be taken into account. But it is just a few factors. I am not sure that Rafale RCS with 2 tanks (usual A2G configuration) has a larger RCS than SU 30 at all... The A2A configuration with one "small" centerline tank is considered as light by the FCS (9g limit).
BTW - LCAs can be point defense for airbases in the northern regions too - guarding against the incursions from enemy attack aircraft. (here - the higher number LCAs would make a difference).
I believe all point defence roles to be with the lighter LCA and the Mk IIs and the AMCA to be optimized for further attacking/multi role duties.
It helps not only in having a cheaper /home grown alternative that can be built in numbers - which will help in focussing our resources (if e need to buy) towards buying state of the art systems for multi role (Rafale) or deep strike with strategic capabilities (Super Su)
which is why i've been saying LCA is an AWESOME system- we will need 100s and 100s of them and comfortably deploy them with great effectiveness. War theatres are different. The southern theatre is so remote for Pakistan that we really don't need an expensive multi-role jet to defend it. by the time their jets will reach there their stores will be so depleted they'll be able to fly only a few minutes in supersonic regime else they'll not even have enough fuel reach home. A light and nimble LCA with a mid air refueler in the vicinity can fly six or seven times longer in supersonic regime aroound the area it has to defend because fuel won't be a problem. Result- a slow and highly encumbered JF 17 unable to fly fast against an LCA that can go full throttle at will. No competition.
Brahmos-M will be like carrying SCALP, Taurus etc. So it won't be a problem for MCA.
I foresee MCA turning out to be a 40yr old design of M2K and nothing too special. Tailless delta platforms need to have high sweep and large wing area with RSS to be able to generate some useful performance. The large wing area makes them lose energy rapidly in sustained combat while they do have advantage in ITR. LCA MK2 or MCA will be a completely new aircraft with TWR worst than that of LCA MK1A. Most of us get fooled with wingloading as the most important parameter but the lift of a wing is dependent on the coefficient of lift of the wing and its sweep angle. When we compare wingloading we must also consider the Cos of LE sweep angle as that decides what the similar wing with zero sweep will produce. As the sweep angle increases, the value of Cos comes down and to make up for that loss of lift, you need larger wings. We all know that Cos 0 is = 1 and Cos90=0. You can never compare an aircraft with lesser sweep with higher wingloading and a highly swept wing with low wingloading.
To give an example, a highly swept wing can have thicker airfoil to enhance its Cl while a lesser swept wing must have a thinner airfoil to be able to overcome drag. F-16 has around 40* sweep with a 4% wing while Marut had a 6% wing with 50* sweep. Mig-21 could go faster with very low powered engines because it had 5% wing for 57* sweep only in supersonic conditions. Marut used to beat it everytime at low levels. So how do we compare aircraft and wings/wing area?
The answer is a combination of sweep angle, lift coefficient, airfoil thickness and vortex lift generated by the wing at its most optimum alpha. Plus the lift enhancement devices like LERX and Canards or levcons coupled with LE & TE devices like slats and flaps. And last is the Reynolds number. The aircraft designers start from Reynolds number first and generally use a proven Reynolds number for designing wings. Every Mirage series including Rafale with the exception of Mirage F1, have used same Reynolds number.
To give an example, a highly swept wing can have thicker airfoil to enhance its Cl while a lesser swept wing must have a thinner airfoil to be able to overcome drag. F-16 has around 40* sweep with a 4% wing while Marut had a 6% wing with 50* sweep. Mig-21 could go faster with very low powered engines because it had 5% wing for 57* sweep only in supersonic conditions. Marut used to beat it everytime at low levels. So how do we compare aircraft and wings/wing area?
The answer is a combination of sweep angle, lift coefficient, airfoil thickness and vortex lift generated by the wing at its most optimum alpha. Plus the lift enhancement devices like LERX and Canards or levcons coupled with LE & TE devices like slats and flaps. And last is the Reynolds number. The aircraft designers start from Reynolds number first and generally use a proven Reynolds number for designing wings. Every Mirage series including Rafale with the exception of Mirage F1, have used same Reynolds number.
Last edited:
compare what the new engine brings in and what is the additional penalty being imposed?